Milchamot v. Warden of O.B.C.C.

Background

Yehudah Milchamot filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging ongoing criminal proceedings in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, arising from an October 10, 2024 arrest. The opinion states that Milchamot was detained on Rikers Island and that this was his fifth Section 2254 petition filed in the Southern District of New York. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee.

The opinion also states that Milchamot had filed a notice seeking to move his criminal case to federal court, but he did not identify the criminal case he sought to move. The court had sent that matter back to state court. The court relied on the reasons given in an earlier related proceeding, without resolving the substance of any challenge to the criminal proceedings.

Reasons for the Decision

Section 2254 permits a federal court to consider a petition filed by a person held under a state-court judgment when the person claims custody violates federal law. The court held that Section 2254 did not apply because no judgment of conviction had been entered in Milchamot’s state case. The court also stated that a person seeking relief must first exhaust available state-court remedies, and the petition did not establish exhaustion.

The court declined to reinterpret the filing as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which can be used to challenge the constitutionality of pretrial detention. The court stated that the petition did not allege facts showing that Milchamot had exhausted state remedies. It further stated that, even if he had exhausted those remedies, the petition did not allege facts supporting federal intervention under the Younger doctrine, which generally requires federal courts to refrain from interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings absent special circumstances.

Disposition

The court denied the Section 2254 petition without prejudice and declined to construe it as a Section 2241 petition. It stated that any challenges Milchamot wished to raise had to be presented in his ongoing criminal proceedings. The court directed the clerk to terminate all motions and enter judgment.

The court also continued an earlier warning that further frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise nonmeritorious habeas litigation could lead to a restriction requiring prior court permission for future habeas filings challenging pretrial detention. The court further stated that language of the type used in earlier filings could result in sanctions. Because the petition did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, the court said that a certificate permitting an appeal would not issue. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.